DxO is Bad as Adobe

DxO PhotoLab
63

I have used PLE and its previous incarnation for many years. I got stung with the same issue of buying too close to the upgrade, partly due to not doing my research but also being encouraged by a badly timed review in magazine. I complained and got nowhere. I really like the software and it does a great job for what I need, and yes the now yearly upgrade could be considered extortionate for the extra functionality you get (usually not much), so my policy now is upgrading every two years, and I’ll see how things go in the future. I’m going to stick with Nik at 2022 standard.

That’s still cheaper than an Adobe subscription, which I canned back in 2019 after running both and hardly using LR or PS, with the LR catalog becoming a bit of a monster. It would appear from the comments that other software is not immune from such practices but at least you can stick with what you’ve got.

I do struggle a bit with the initiating post though, why would you spend all that money for a capable piece of software and then be done with it because the company brings out a new version, which is hardly a massive upgrade?

2 Likes
65

The irony of this expected turn of events is that you can find each year, during the Black Friday, an Amazon/Adobe offer that brings us a costless subscription (73,99€) for both Lightroom + Photoshop instead of the 89,99€ for only Photolab !

Now that we have learnt that Photolab will be licence connected, and when faced with piecemeal updates that don’t justify a yearly version change, there are serious questions to ask ourself because the promises are not up to scratch …
Wasn’ t the Dxo’s creed, some years ago, to make things differents to be in the photographer’s side ?

I’m really thinking to give up with Photolab updates and stay with my PL7 and give another try with Adobe (I’ve already done it, actually…) .
Nik is always worth it but is going on the same way that Photolab…
What a waste, Photolab was so nice but not at any price !

2 Likes
66

With all the competition available it is great that we have a lot of choices. After years of experience with a wide variety of post processing programs I would rather stick with the PhotoLab suite, including FilmPack and Viewpoint than use anything else. I am willing to pay a premium price for it, but I understand the reluctance of other users to do the same.

Mark

1 Like
67

Let’s say that, some years ago PL suite was a game changer in front of Adobe but years after years it becomes less true. One example and not the least, we can’t totally move to Dxo, for the simple reason that not ALL raw files are supported (old digital camera, smartphone, scanner, DNG). I don’t have speak about the anecdotic library, but it’s a true subject to compete with LR.
I.A is another one with a long advance for Adobe.
For now, lightroom and darktable stand as universal raw softwares. In my personal/professional case I should have kept both PL and LR but regarding my yearly budget, and the messy files management by keeping both, one should be abandonned and the reason would suggest me to keep the more professional and universal’s one…
I’m not a Adobe’s fanboy nor any other brand’s software or hardware but there is a reality principle in our buying decisions that must meet our expectations as a priority and avoid disappointing us.
For those points, the winners are always the brands that do listen to their customer.
Are DXO and Adobe bad companies ? I don’t think so but the way they move the cursor towards their wallet or towards ours is the main success factor for customer loyalty.

1 Like
68

You cannot blame a company for making a profit. Without that it becomes extinct and it has to be a reasonable profit too. I certainly would not move away from the security of a profitable company to the uncertainly of free software. Others will disagree I know but that is how it is for me.

69

Your precious companies who must make a profit are:

  • making record profits
  • running huge share buyback programs
  • cutting staff by the thousands

DxO is not leading the charge here, obviously. But the bad behaviour at the top has filtered down to DxO who tries every trick possible to make more money at our expense.

Flinting your customer is not a winning long term business policy. I no longer do free outreach for DxO:

  • DxO does not support my smartphone
  • DxO only does current macOS +1 (at the worst point of the year, some of the year it is macOS +2, should be macOS +2 at the worst point, better when possible, this is just vicious policy to force its users to go through unnecessary OS updates which are almost always a huge waste of time, it might work on a bi-annual OS upgrade cycle but not on annual). DxO forced upgrades have cost me many thousands and dozens of lost hours.

More petty but indicative is how DxO now steals the VAT from their business customers (if you have a VAT number, DxO puts the money in their pocket, I’ll remove my VAT number to make sure the state gets the money before DxO).

Anyway this Western profit-only mentality will eventually take down our whole economy. The economy is there to serve the people. The company is there to serve its customers and its employees. It’s not a magic piggy bank for greedy senior management and VC.

3 Likes
70

To make the decision of buying a program (I don’t like subscription models) and committing to it (thinking in a long-term use), I take several things into account. If the program does what I need to be done, if it does it right, if I feel comfortable with the UI, and if it suits my workflow, among other technical issues that I take into consideration.

But I also consider if I feel comfortable and confident with the developer’s commercial and updating policies. Therefore, I am never happy when after having decided to buy a program also because of these latter reasons, they are changed overtime.

I originally bought DxO OpticsPro more than ten years ago for all the reasons mentioned above. I paid for updates of it, and when the time came I switched to PhotoLab and did the same until its version 5. I jumped versions 6 and 7 because I felt not much was being added or improved for those according to my needs (for example: if I am not wrong, one of those versions included tools from ViewPoint, but I already had ViewPoint which I had previously bought and also updated). Then version 8 came out, and I thought this one was worth updating to, and that it was time to do so. But I found out that lots of things changed since I updated to version 5, which I don’t feel comfortable with. I don’t have an upgrading offer price and have to buy the program as totally new (when there are several features and tools which are the same as for version 5). The versions of ViewPoint and FilmPack that I have are not compatible with PL 8 and there is no special updating price for those either, so I would have to spend a fortune to get an updated version of the dated -but still useful for me- DxO’s combo I have today (and what about Black Friday? well, it’s only a 22 percent off, of a lot of money for me anyway). And finally, I would have to validate my licence every month (which feels to me a bit as a one time payment subscription plan).

I entered my account with the idea of updating to PL 8 (not because I really needed to) and thinking of updating in the near future FilmPack, but after getting to know what I mentioned in relation to DxO’s new policies, I got discouraged and I won’t. For less money (for the money I can pay) I could buy DxO PureRaw, but apart from having a more advanced denoising option (being that I anyway try to avoid as possible shooting at very high ISOs), it seems to me that PL 5 offers me more features and editing tools. My working flow for now will keep being developing my raw files with PL 5 taking advantage of the tools it (and my versions of ViewPoint and FilmPack) have, then converting to DNG and afterwords keep on processing the DNG files with ACDSee Ultimate (which I did update to version 2024) and if in the need, post editing my images in ACDSee’s Edit mode or in Affinity Photo (which I also updated to its latest version). If necessary for some particular editing tasks, I also have several Topaz legacy programs (which I can still use and work fine), and Nick Collection (Google version), among other useful plugins. My point being that I was willing to update to PL 8 and maybe to FilmPack 7 not because I really needed to, but because of the price I have to pay for doing so, and due to the updating and commercial policies now imposed by DxO, I felt discouraged. I know… it’s my problem and only mine (is it?).

2 Likes
71

It’s not a problem, though, even for you. You are free to look at the offering, decide it’s not worth it and keep using the software you’ve already bought. Your tools are not locked away from you because you’ve refused to pay some annual fee. That annual fee is the problem with Adobe, that’s why comparing it to DxO is disingenuous.

I skipped PhotoLab 7, upgraded from 6 to 8 for the same price 7 would have cost me at the time. Was I disappointed with 7? Sure. Are DxO upgrades especially generous? No. But I know I can double the value of an upgrade if I wait an additional year.

Obviously, jumping more than 2 versions gets you back to a full-price offer and that’s why you’re unsatisfied. But think about it for a moment. Would it be fair to get three full years of software development for a single update price? At this point, you’re not subsidizing their efforts.

Nor do you have to. You’ll keep using PL 5 to great effect as long as it runs on your OS, or v9/10 tempts you at least. How is that “as bad as Adobe?”

72

None of that changes my view. If I do not like the way a company behaves I will make choices but I am not against profit making companies, far from it.

73

I don’t know where you live but, for a VAT registered business in the UK, you simply enter the total invoice value minus the VAT, then enter the VAT, which is refunded.

74

LStoev, you might have missed some points (the main ones I think) I was trying to make. My fault perhaps if I failed on correctly expressing myself.

On your reply to my post, you mainly (or almost only) concentrate on my comment about the cost for updating, and say (suggest) what I can do in response. Well, I knew that, as it is what I am doing and so I said. There are lots of things I didn’t mention in relation to this subject, as plenty has been said in that respect throughout this thread and I think it would have been redundant (and too long of an exposure) to repeat them all. But I’ll now mention a few. The price for LP, ViewPoint and FilmPack have seriously been increased throughout time (maybe doubled?). I originally bought DxO_OpticsPro7 on December 2011 for 99 U$S (transaction Id:: DL121211013511AC), and now PL 8 costs 229 U$S (will you blame this to inflation?). But forget this observation. I did not mention in my previous post (again, because the subject has been put forward several times throughout the thread and wasn’t part of the main point I was tying to make) that if I would have been offered an update discount, I wouldn’t have taken it anyway because (for what I read) I would be loosing my PL 5 licence, and therefore the possibility of using the ViewPoint and FilmPack versions that I already have in combination with PL (as the versions that I have of these complements are not any more compatible with the newest version of PL).

When I said that the monthly validating policy of PL licence feels to me a bit as a one time payment subscription plan, I was tying this comment to be kind of an euphemism, as obviously, DxO does not have a subscription scheme (it seems I failed to make myself understood). Also, about this subject, a lot has been said and criticized along this thread (critisms to which I subscribe), so I will not deepen on the subject. And by the way, I did not mention Adobe (there are other lots of programs that have a subscription scheme, which by the way I also don’t like).

But let’s concentrate on the main point I was trying to make. DxO has been changing (increasing) the prices of their products, and changing their commercial and updating policies throughout time (or might someone say they have not been doing so?). I also said that I also consider when deciding if to buy a program, if I feel comfortable and confident with the developer’s commercial and updating policies and therefore, I am never happy when after having decided to buy a program also because of these reasons, they are changed overtime. Should I trust that a Developer (DxO in this case) will not change them again and again if they have already been doing so?

Examples of Developers that have changed their prices, and commercial and updating policies systematically are the ones from Adobe’s programs and Capture One. Examples of developers that have kept their policies over time are the ones from ACDSee and Serif (Affinity today).

I think that some Developers underestimate (even against their own convenience) the importance of showing consistence of their commercial and updating policies and some loyalty to their costumers. This generates a reciprocal loyalty of some of them (my case at least).

I will give you an example of what I have just mentioned: I have been buying and updating Serif’s photo editor program since more than 15 years ago (since it was PhotoPlus). Affinity Photo 2 has now a beta version on trial that incorporates AI masking tools. I had version 1 but did not automatically update to version 2 because for what I do, it did not offer me any new important advantages. But AI masking (which ACDSee already has) sounds interesting. Though not officially yet included to version 2, it seems it will be done. So I waited until Black Friday to buy the program because they consistently have a 50 % discount on the occasion (and I know that because they always do). And I took the risk of updating to version 2 because I believe them, because they have never yet deceived me as a customer and have kept their commercial policies overtime. The same with ACDSee and other programs I have. But I would never buy Capture One or an Adobe’s program. Would I buy again a DxO program some time in the future? Yes, DxO it is not as bad as Adobe (I never said so) and their programs are good enough (and excel in some respects) so as to allow me to forget some of my principles. Do I trust DxO will keep their today policies overtime? No, because they have demonstrated through time that they don’t.

Anyway, I am only expressing and sharing my thoughts, which are not necessarily other’s.

75

Your misgivings regarding DxO’s pricing and upgrade policies over time are well understood and I doubt anyone here disagrees. The problem is real. I do think that you’re exaggerating it, though. Frankly, the level of customer-friendliness you expect is a bit unrealistic in the modern world.

Sure, DxO is not particularly customer-friendly. They have a sneaky way of locking features behind additional software. They don’t allow you to manually deactivate software seats. They can sometimes charge high for relatively slight upgrades. And yes, the rise in price does exceed the rate of inflation.

Still better than the competition, though. If you want top-tier RAW demosaicing, there are only three options - Lightroom, Capture One and PhotoLab. You already addressed the mess C1 made of their business model. And Adobe… do I even need to say anything?

DxO have commited to perpetual licensing, and they do allow you to skip 1 upgrade without a price penalty. That’s the best we’re gonna get. No incentive for them to do better when the competition is worse. Not a good situation, obviously, but complaining is unproductive.

ACDsee and On1 can be easier on the pockets, but their RAW demosaic is subpar, so not really an alternative for demanding users. They’re just not in a position to charge a premium.

Serif/Affinity do have the best business model in imaging software, but they’re an outlier for a reason - not something you can reasonably expect from others. It’s also a different type of app, so still no DxO alternative. It’s also a much less niche app - the economy of scale is on their side.

Yes, you never said so. Sorry, my bad - the topic started with this statement and I mistook you for the original poster.

You meant it as an euphemism, but a lot of people mean it literally. It’s a statement I’ve heard many times from Adobe-defenders, which is why it got me riled-up enough to engage with this discussion in the first place. Not your fault, sorry if I came off aggressive.

Your arguments are level-headed, really, you’ll just have to level your expectations as well.

1 Like
76

I live in Europe which is evident from my post. You live in France for that matter, not the UK. And in the EU we have intra-European VAT deduction rules which means the place to get the VAT back for a non-French company is at the purchase point.

Which is where DxO steals the VAT since 2022.

Here’s how the scam works. DxO admits that a European business is entitled to your VAT back. But if you are a business you must pay more for DxO software. DxO will pocket the difference. No VAT is paid, but DxO puts the VAT in their own pocket.

Pickpocketing, basically.

77

It used to work this way until about PhotoLab 5. And we all made a huge investment when we bought the full DxO PhotoLab suite (€330 on sale if I remember correctly) whenever we did. It’s up to DxO to impress us enough each year to make us pay an annual upgrade fee.

DxO would be a heck of a lot better software developer if new versions dropped every year and a half or two years when they drop. Instead we get releases which hardly deserve the time of day some years.

Cutting past full suite customers off from reduced price upgrades is bad manners and bad business in the long term (those who have been cut off will look hard and long at Adobe’s reduced annual offers or ACDSEE or On1, not C1 as their commercial behaviour is even worse than DxO).

DxO is squeezing us (their ageing and locked-in userbase, average age around here appears to be above sixty, I fit right in) for everything they can. I still do like the software very much. Sometime there was a genius there at DxO who had revolutionary ideas about how to process RAW files in the best possible way.

What I can’t figure out –– since the userbase DxO is squeezing so hard is older –– is why every year PhotoLab comes with a lower and lower contrast scheme. I’ve hated the last version or two as I can barely read the controls on the screen, particularly at photo processing levels of brightness. It just mystifies me why the young programmers at DxO are (metaphorically) allowed to press their thumbs into the eyes of the paying users.

78

Didn’t know that, I bought in at v5. Easy to see why you’re displeased, things have gotten worse. Do consider that the economy has also gotten worse, though. DxO are merely keeping up with the times.

I did find PhotoLab 7 to be a half-step upgrade. 8 is what 7 should have been in the first place. So I went from 6 straight to 8 for the price of one upgrade - with a black friday discount on top, no less. Can’t say I feel ripped-off. The biannual upgrade cycle you suggest wouldn’t have made this any cheaper for me. In fact, what I did got me a biannual upgrade cycle in all but name.

Only difference being that half the improvements rolled off earlier for those willing to pay more. They subsidized DxO’s development while I wasn’t affected in the slightest - that’s a net win if I ever saw one. And let’s be honest, DxO may need said subsidization - slowing the paid releases by 100% would surely hit their pockets. You could argue that a better release would have lead to a higher percentage of customers upgrading and thus offsetting the extended development cost - but you don’t know that. And if it didn’t prove to be true, DxO would have a very costly mistake on their hands, wouldn’t they?

Anyway, the question was whether they should offer the upgrade discount for 2+ version jumps. I can’t answer that definitively - fairness in pricing is subjective. Sustainability in business is objective, though, it is what it is.

Really, you said it yourself - the userbase is small and largely ageing. It’s a niche product, which means they need high profit margins. Niche things are not bang-for-buck propositions.

1 Like
79

i think the 2 yrs is fair enough, but they should support the full 7yrs of MAC OS like everyone else and not just latest 3, all MAC i ever had lasted me over 8yrs while PC never pass the 2 yrs mark, i’m not windows compatible =/

1 Like
80

First, I ought to be fair and therefore correct myself regarding one of the comments I made in one of my posts on this thread. I have just found out in DxO’s website (in their “DxO PhotoLab / DxO PureRAW / DxO FilmPack / DxO ViewPoint compatibility with OSes & third-party software” webpage) that older versions of ViewPoint and FilmPack are still compatible with PhotoLab 8 and previous versions.

Being so (and there is no reason for which I should doubt it) -and if this policy is not changed-, it wouldn’t be that traumatic to buy sometime in the future the whichever current latest versions of PhotoLab is being sold (even given the case of not qualifying for an update discount as in mine), when already having older versions of ViewPoint and FilmPack (if they would still be able to work within PL). Therefore, updating those complementary programs that one has could in any case be done later on or not, according to one’s conveniences and financial situation at the proper time.

I just hope that DxO keeps allowing older versions of ViewPoint and FilmPack to work within future versions of PL and don’t change this (…as well).

Now,

I think that DxO might have created a new and successful niche with PureRaw. I have read here and there comments of several people who bought and are buying PureRaw in order to, after processing their images with it, keep on doing their edits with other programs (being them Lightroom, Photoshop, ACDSee, Affinity Photo or whichever). My only doubt would be how often will DxO be able to issue a worthy update of PureRaw and/or how many relevant features can they manage to add to a program which is so specific in the tasks it does and so specifically targeted. Whilst I can easily imagine features and tools that could be added to PhotoLab through time.

1 Like
81

George

Stenis

Oct 17

Off course the goverment must be alert. But that something else as you wrote.

George

Somebody flagged this post, twice. Can somebody tell me what’s wrong??

George